By Alan Caruba
The intense cold that many Americans
are encountering arrives more than a month before the official start of winter
on December 2l.
To discuss this, we need to keep in
mind that weather is what is
occurring now. Climate is measured
over longer periods, the minimum of which is thirty years and, beyond that,
centuries.
We are colder these days because the
Earth has been in a cooling cycle for 19 years and that cycle is based entirely
on the Sun which has been radiating less heat for the same period of time.
Describing the role of the Sun,
Australian geologist, Ian Plimer, said, “There is a big thermonuclear reactor in
the sky that emits huge amounts of energy to the Earth…The Sun provides the
energy for photosynthesis. The Sun is the bringer of life to Earth. If the Sun
were more energetic the oceans would boil. If the Sun were less energetic the
oceans would freeze and all life on Earth would be destroyed.”
We don’t control the Sun. Or the
climate. It controls us.
Consider the fact that the Sun has a
diameter of 865,000 miles. The Earth’s diameter is 7,917.5 miles. Thus, the
Sun’s diameter is 109 times greater than the Earth’s. Carbon dioxide is barely
0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere. Reducing it as the U.S.-China agreement
proposes would have zero effect on the Earth’s
climate.
We not only can, but should ignore the
blatant lies of President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, both of whom
have been saying things about “climate change” without a scintilla of science to
back them up. They’re not alone, however. In August, the U.N. Climate Chief,
Christiana Figueres, warned of climate “chaos” in 500 days and told the World
Health Organization that climate change was on a par with the outbreak of Ebola
as a public health emergency.
It was big news on November 11 when The
Wall Street Journal’s lead story on its front page reported that “The U.S.
and China unveiled long-term plans to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other
gases linked to climate change, a surprise move aimed at kick-starting a new
round of international climate negotiations and blunting domestic opposition to
cuts in both countries.”
Someone needs to tell the Wall Street
Journal there is no “climate change” that is not entirely NATURAL and unrelated
to anything humans are doing.
The announcement plays into the
longtime efforts of the environmental movement to impose energy limits on the
world’s population. Similar limits will be called for when climate talks are
launched in December by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change in Lima, Peru.
Why the leaders of nations keep calling for limits that can only result in the reduction of energy production, the loss of economic benefits from industrial activity and the jobs it provides, and the modern lifestyle of advanced nations is one of life’s great mysteries.
Why the leaders of nations keep calling for limits that can only result in the reduction of energy production, the loss of economic benefits from industrial activity and the jobs it provides, and the modern lifestyle of advanced nations is one of life’s great mysteries.
If you really disliked America, you
would no doubt pursue President Obama’s anti-energy agenda. That agenda is
expressed by a series of climate and pollution measures that an article in
Politico.com says “rivals any presidential environmental actions of the past
quarter-century—a reality check for Republicans who think last week’s election
gave them a mandate to end what they call the White House’s ‘War on Coal.’”
The authors of the Politico.com
article, Andrew Restuccia and Erica Martinson, note that Obama’s assault on the
nation is “Tied to court-ordered deadlines, legal mandates and international
climate talks” over the next two months, all in the name of a climate change
“And incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have few options for
stopping the onslaught, though Republicans may be able to slow pieces of
it.”
“The coming rollout
includes a Dec. 1 proposal by EPA to tighten limits on smog-causing ozone, which
business groups say could be the costliest federal regulation of all time; a final
rule Dec. 19 for clamping down on disposal of power plants’ toxic coal
cash;
the Jan. 1 start date for a long-debated rule prohibiting states
from polluting the air of their downwind neighbors; and a Jan. 8 deadline for
issuing a final rule restricting
greenhouse gas emissions from future power plants. That last rule is a
centerpiece of Obama’s most ambitious environmental effort, the big plan for
combating climate change that he announced at Georgetown
University in June 2013.”
This vile assault
flies in the face of actual climate trends: record low tornadoes
record
low hurricanes, record gain in Arctic
ice, record amount of
Antarctic ice, no change in the rate
of sea level rise, no evidence of a
Greenland meltdown, and again no
warming for 19 years.
As this and future winters turn colder, arrive sooner and stay around longer, Americans will be affected by the reduction of coal-fired plants that generate electrical power. The nation will encounter blizzards that will leave some homeowners and apartment dwellers without heat. It is predictable that some will die.
As this and future winters turn colder, arrive sooner and stay around longer, Americans will be affected by the reduction of coal-fired plants that generate electrical power. The nation will encounter blizzards that will leave some homeowners and apartment dwellers without heat. It is predictable that some will die.
A cruel and costly
climate hoax is being perpetrated by President Obama and, in particular, by the
Environmental Protection Agency. The new Congress must take whatever action it
can to reverse and stop the harm that it represents; people’s jobs and lives
depend on it.
© Alan Caruba,
2014
Please specifically cite examples of those advocating for alternative energy as a means of reducing green house gases saying 'we want less energy'. What I hear and read them saying is that they want more energy from other sources. Please tell us exactly where you have read them say the opposite.
ReplyDeleteThe primary "reason" given for renewable energy use is that it reduces greenhouse gases. As my article explains, that is bogus because the Earth is not threatened by CO2. I suggest that you spare yourself the bother and not comment in the future.
ReplyDelete